98 / And now for the backlash
The backlash against Richard Dawkins is hilarious. Just state the bleeding obvious and those affected wail about 'intolerance' and 'insensitivity'. They just don't like to be offended, those dear, earnest religious types.
Which is a problem, because you cannot argue, "there is no God, because if there was a God we'd know about it and the world would be fundamentally different," without offending, being insensitive, intolerant and blasphemous.
The point is, if their religious belief was strong, nobody could offend them, they would laugh non-believers off. But deep down fundamentalist religious beliefs are weak. If God was a fact, there would be proof. One has to deduct that non-existing proof of the existence of God means there is no God. I'm sorry, but intelligence demands that deduction - and I dare say, intelligent religious types know that (it is said many clergy actually are atheists.*)
So, where to go from here? As soon as we adapt a more broad definition of 'God' (as Joe Hockey did - God is good, but just be sure not to take Him too literally, SMH, 2009 November 10) we can all live together peacefully.
* There is this droll story about two priests who are good friends,
so they can talk about anything. One night they stay up into the
early hours and discuss if there is a God. After much deliberation
(and surely a lot of veritas found in vino) they agree there is no God.
But in the morning the one finds the other in prayer.
"What are you doing, I thought last night we agreed there is no God?"
"Well, yes. But what does that have to do with anything?"